Speaker 1: Good morning, and welcome to the Daily Odds. It's Tuesday,
Speaker 1: the twenty fourth of June.
Speaker 2: I'm Lucy Tassel, I'm Sam Kulski.
Speaker 1: Over the weekend, the US struck Iran.
Speaker 3: The operation President Trump planned was bold and it was brilliant,
Speaker 3: showing the world that American deterrence is back.
Speaker 2: Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, and
Speaker 2: we support action to prevent that.
Speaker 4: That is what this is.
Speaker 1: It's the largest attack America has ever carried out on
Speaker 1: Iran and comes amid a war between Iran and Israel,
Speaker 1: which counts the US as its closest ally. In today's episode,
Speaker 1: we'll explain the historic strike, discuss Iran's reaction, and catch
Speaker 1: you up with this rapidly evolving story.
Speaker 2: Okay, So, Lucy, when you and I chatted in the
Speaker 2: office on Friday afternoon, yeah, the position was that we
Speaker 2: knew that President Trump was considering the possibility of the
Speaker 2: US striking Iran. Here said this very ominous, indecisive quote
Speaker 2: of I may do it, I may not do it.
Speaker 2: Late last week, then on Sunday morning, our time, about
Speaker 2: ten am, he did do it, and he launched strikes
Speaker 2: on three nuclear sites in Iran. There's so much one pack,
Speaker 2: But give me a sense of how we got here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean it's hard to know where to even start.
Speaker 1: I know that we have been discussing how we can
Speaker 1: explain the US Iran relationship. If that's something you would
Speaker 1: be interested in, please reach out to us.
Speaker 2: I'll let us know.
Speaker 1: I'm just going to kind of talk about the last
Speaker 1: few days, just to catch people up to speed. I
Speaker 1: think it starts with a statement from the UN Nuclear
Speaker 1: Watchdog earlier this month. So the watchdog said Iran had
Speaker 1: failed to comply with its international legal obligations to allow
Speaker 1: independent monitors from the UN to fully investigate its nuclear sites.
Speaker 1: It said it hadn't answered questions about activities at certain sites,
Speaker 1: and it said Iran hadn't explained why it was accruing quote,
Speaker 1: highly enriched urani, which is the kind that you need
Speaker 1: for nuclear weapons rather than nuclear energy. The Watchdog did
Speaker 1: not find that Iran had a nuclear weapon or had
Speaker 1: made one, but it said it was the only nation
Speaker 1: without nuclear weapons that is producing such material, which the
Speaker 1: watchdog couldn't ignore given the potential proliferation implications and.
Speaker 2: All of those international regulations that govern the nuclear energy
Speaker 2: and nuclear warfare sphere or comes in this framework of
Speaker 2: the international community trying to figure out how to prevent
Speaker 2: a nuclear war essentially, But what do you mean by
Speaker 2: the word proliferation?
Speaker 1: In this context, the word proliferation means increasing the number
Speaker 1: of nuclear weapons in the world. The UN's main treaty
Speaker 1: on nuclear weapons is called the Treaty on the Non
Speaker 1: Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which binds countries to never acquire
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons other than a handful which had developed and
Speaker 1: detonated one before nineteen sixty seven. Iran had signed this treaty,
Speaker 1: as has the US. Israel has not. Nuclear weapons are
Speaker 1: obviously catastrophic. We know from the only time in history
Speaker 1: they have been used in conflict, during World War II,
Speaker 1: when the US dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese
Speaker 1: cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, how wide ranging and long
Speaker 1: lasting the effects can be. There are strict regulations under
Speaker 1: international law around which countries are allowed to have them.
Speaker 1: As I said earlier, we have heard, though from governments
Speaker 1: around the world, including our own, that Iran can never
Speaker 1: be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, can never become
Speaker 1: a nuclear nation.
Speaker 2: And what is it about Iran that puts it in
Speaker 2: that category of country.
Speaker 1: For some context origious statement from the G seven summit
Speaker 1: earlier this month, where world leaders said Iran can never
Speaker 1: have a nuclear weapon because it is the principal source
Speaker 1: of regional instability and terror. We know so that Iran
Speaker 1: financially and militarily supports a number of groups in the region,
Speaker 1: Hamas in Gaza, Hesbla and Lebanon, and the Huthis in Yemen,
Speaker 1: among others. All three groups are designated as terrorist organizations
Speaker 1: by Australia. We also know that the Iranian regime has
Speaker 1: said its goal is to destroy Israel, and again on
Speaker 1: that note of concern about what it would do to
Speaker 1: the region. Saudi Arabia, for example, has said it will
Speaker 1: acquire nuclear weapons if Iran develops one. Israel is believed
Speaker 1: to have nuclear weapons, but it has never publicly confirmed
Speaker 1: or denied either way. Finally, in twenty fifteen, Iran signed
Speaker 1: a treaty that it would not develop nuclear weapons, that
Speaker 1: its nuclear program would only be for energy in exchange
Speaker 1: for other countries, slowly lifting financial restrictions on Iran.
Speaker 2: Okay, so let me kind of bring that all together.
Speaker 2: You've got a country that is known to be supporting
Speaker 2: and financially facilitating known terrorist groups in the region. And
Speaker 2: it's a region where other countries have said, well, if
Speaker 2: they keep developing their nuclear program, then we'll have to
Speaker 2: as well. So you've got a backdrop of all of
Speaker 2: these concerns. Then you have their promise of not developing
Speaker 2: a weapon, and then last week we got this release
Speaker 2: from the UN Nuclear watchdog saying there are concerns that
Speaker 2: they are in fact making progress. Yeah. Then what after that?
Speaker 1: Israel carried out a series of strikes on Iran. Israel
Speaker 1: said it was targeting military and nuclear infrastructure, including the
Speaker 1: residences of military generals in apartment buildings in Tehran. Here's
Speaker 1: what Israeli PM Benjamin Netnya, who said was Israel's justification.
Speaker 4: In recent months, Iran has taken steps that it has
Speaker 4: never taken before, steps to weaponize this enriched uranium. If
Speaker 4: not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a
Speaker 4: very short time. It could be a year, it could
Speaker 4: be within a few months, less than a you this
Speaker 4: is a clear and present danger to Israel's very survival.
Speaker 1: Iran, for its part, has repeatedly said its nuclear program
Speaker 1: is entirely peaceful, Iran's supreme leader is called the Ayatollah,
Speaker 1: and he said a few times in the past that
Speaker 1: the use of nuclear weapons is haram or forbidden under Islam,
Speaker 1: and Iran, as we know, is an Islamic republic ever
Speaker 1: since its revolution in nineteen seventy nine. Iran responded by
Speaker 1: striking back. It hit Israeli cities Telabev and Haifa. In
Speaker 1: the ensuing days, the nations have struck each other with missiles.
Speaker 1: Both sides say they're aiming for military infrastructure. Both sides
Speaker 1: have killed and injured civilians. The latest death toll that
Speaker 1: we have from Iranian authorities is four hundred and thirty deaths,
Speaker 1: mainly civilians. Israeli authorities report twenty five civilian deaths. During
Speaker 1: this time, there was a lot of discuss about whether
Speaker 1: the US would strike Iran, as we mentioned at the
Speaker 1: top of today's episode, given its close relationship with Israel
Speaker 1: and its capabilities as the world's most powerful military.
Speaker 2: It's crazy to think that from when that nuclear report
Speaker 2: came out to last Friday was only about a week. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it was about eight or nine days, So so much
Speaker 2: happened in that period, and this idea of US involvement
Speaker 2: started to become more and more present in the new cycle,
Speaker 2: in the language with which all parties were speaking and
Speaker 2: analyzing the situation. And then on Sunday morning, there was
Speaker 2: this strike from the US and we found out via
Speaker 2: a post to President Trump's social media platform Truth Social.
Speaker 2: Tell me about the strike.
Speaker 1: We know the US struck three nuclear sites in Iran.
Speaker 1: US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said on Sunday night
Speaker 1: our time that the US flew B two Spirit planes,
Speaker 1: which are really big and really quiet aircraft. He said
Speaker 1: these were flown into Iranian airspace without being detected and
Speaker 1: dropped what he called massive ordinance penetrators. We would know
Speaker 1: these better as bunker busters. It's a kind of bomb
Speaker 1: that drops deeply into the earth before exploding. These were
Speaker 1: dropped because at least one of Iran's nuclear sites is
Speaker 1: deep underground.
Speaker 2: About ninety meters I think underground, so a substantial amount
Speaker 2: of earth to get through with the bomb. Yeah, to
Speaker 2: actually do some damage to the facility, yeah.
Speaker 1: Hegsath said it was the first time these had ever
Speaker 1: been used. He added that the goal of the operation
Speaker 1: was to quote neutralize the threats to our national interests
Speaker 1: posed by the Iranian nuclear program and the collective self
Speaker 1: defense of our troops and our ally Israel.
Speaker 2: So to translate some of that kind of corporate political
Speaker 2: speak to what Hags Earth is actually saying there, He's saying,
Speaker 2: essentially that the US needed to bomb these Iranian nuclear
Speaker 2: facilities because there was a threat to America and a
Speaker 2: threat to Israel and a threat to American troops in
Speaker 2: the region. Yeah, and what is his boss, President Trump
Speaker 2: said about this?
Speaker 1: Shortly after Trump made that truth social post, he spoke
Speaker 1: at the White House. He is a bit of what
Speaker 1: he said.
Speaker 3: This cannot continue. There will be either peace or there
Speaker 3: will be tragedy. For I ran far greater than we
Speaker 3: have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are
Speaker 3: many targets left. The nights was the most difficult of
Speaker 3: them all by far, and perhaps the most lethal. But
Speaker 3: if peace does not come quickly, we will go after
Speaker 3: those other targets with precision, speed and skill. Most of
Speaker 3: them can be taken out in a matter of minutes.
Speaker 2: And that last part of the statement, Lucy, was probably
Speaker 2: of the most concerns of you and I when we
Speaker 2: were watching that address live on Sunday. It really brought
Speaker 2: to the fronts this idea that the US could continue
Speaker 2: striving which the international community might consider more of a
Speaker 2: full blown war with Iran, rather than this language around
Speaker 2: a targeted strike, a limited strike, allumited operation. What has
Speaker 2: the reaction been from Iran to these strikes, especially with
Speaker 2: that framing by President Trump.
Speaker 1: So Iran called for the UN Security Council to have
Speaker 1: an emergency meeting, which happened on Monday morning our time.
Speaker 1: The Security Council, for those who might not know, is
Speaker 1: one of the UN's main bodies. It's responsible for the
Speaker 1: maintenance of international peace and security. It's the only body
Speaker 1: in the UN that actually has the power to make
Speaker 1: decisions that member states are obligated to implement. It has
Speaker 1: fifteen members. Some of these are permanent, some of them
Speaker 1: are temporary. The US is one of the permanent members.
Speaker 1: Australia has been a temporary member in the past. We
Speaker 1: are not currently on the makeup of the Security Council.
Speaker 1: So at that Security Council meeting, Iran's delegate used Netnyahu again,
Speaker 1: he's the Israeli Prime Minister of quote hijacking US foreign policy,
Speaker 1: dragging the United States into yet another costly, baseless war.
Speaker 1: He called the US attack quote aggression and unlawful action,
Speaker 1: and said the allegations of nuclear development were baseless. He
Speaker 1: said Iran had a right to defend itself and that
Speaker 1: its response would be quote proportionate in terms of what
Speaker 1: that attack could involve. We should remember Iran is a
Speaker 1: long way from even the US East Coast, and not
Speaker 1: many countries have missiles that have a long enough range
Speaker 1: to travel that far. I would think it would be
Speaker 1: more likely for Iran to attack a US military base
Speaker 1: in the region, which, as we said, was something that
Speaker 1: Trump was thinking about.
Speaker 2: The other potential, therefore, Iran is a response directly against
Speaker 2: Israel they see as part of this duo with the US.
Speaker 2: That indeed happened in the twenty four hours after the
Speaker 2: strikes on the three nuclear facilities. What has the position
Speaker 2: been from the US and Israel in the days since
Speaker 2: the strike?
Speaker 4: Yeah. So.
Speaker 1: At that Security Council meeting, the US said its move
Speaker 1: was justified because of the UN Watchdog report and that
Speaker 1: it needed to act now to quote eliminate a longstanding
Speaker 1: but rapidly escalating source of global insecurity and to aid
Speaker 1: our ally Israel in our inherent right of collective self defense.
Speaker 1: Israel's representative called the attack a quote last line of defense,
Speaker 1: saying the cost of inaction would have been catastrophic. A
Speaker 1: nuclear Iran would have been a death sentence, just as
Speaker 1: much for you as it would have been for us.
Speaker 2: We'll be back with more of today's date dive right
Speaker 2: after this. I want to talk a little bit more
Speaker 2: about this idea about self defense and the way that
Speaker 2: that's used in coordination with an idea of a preemptive
Speaker 2: strike as well. There's been a number of times in
Speaker 2: the international arena in the last couple of years that
Speaker 2: we've seen self defense and preemptive strike language US. We
Speaker 2: can talk about Hamas attacking Israel on the seventh of
Speaker 2: October twenty twenty three. We can also talk about Russia
Speaker 2: invading Ukraine.
Speaker 4: The year before.
Speaker 2: Where does this idea of self defense come from? Because
Speaker 2: I know there's a body of international law. It's a
Speaker 2: notoriously hard area to actually police, But give me a
Speaker 2: sense of kind of the rule book that sits behind
Speaker 2: all of this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the idea of the right to self defense comes
Speaker 1: from the United Nations Charter. It's kind of its founding document.
Speaker 1: It was signed when the organization was being formed in
Speaker 1: the dying days of World War II. Under that charter,
Speaker 1: which member states agree to, countries have a right to
Speaker 1: quote individual or collective self defense if an armed attack
Speaker 1: occurs against a member of the United Nations until the
Speaker 1: Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace
Speaker 1: and security. So that's what the US is talking about
Speaker 1: in relation to collective self defense acting on behalf of
Speaker 1: their ally is. It remains to be seen if the
Speaker 1: UN its other members will accept the possibility of progress
Speaker 1: towards a nuclear bomb as enough to justify an attack
Speaker 1: of individual self defense by Israel on Iran. Iran would
Speaker 1: argue and has argued, because Israel attacked it, it now
Speaker 1: has a right to self defense.
Speaker 2: So we've talked through the United Nations response to this
Speaker 2: and the Security Council. Let's hone in though, on Australia's reaction. Yeah,
Speaker 2: what has the reaction been from the Australian government.
Speaker 1: We've heard that the government supports the US strikes, with
Speaker 1: Foreign Minister Pennywong saying it supports quote action to prevent
Speaker 1: Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, and that is what this is.
Speaker 1: She said, these sites are specific to Iran's nuclear program,
Speaker 1: and we know that the UN Nuclear watchdog has said
Speaker 1: that Iran is enriching to almost military levels. However, both
Speaker 1: Penny Wong and Prime Minister Anthony Albanizi have been to
Speaker 1: emphasize that these strikes were unilaterally from the US, that
Speaker 1: this was carried out by the US without any other
Speaker 1: country involved. The Prime Minister said Australia supported action to
Speaker 1: prevent Iran from making a nuclear weapon, but said the
Speaker 1: government wanted to quote diplomacy, dialogue and de escalation in
Speaker 1: the region.
Speaker 2: And the other part of this story is that there
Speaker 2: are Australians in the conflict zone, both in Iran and
Speaker 2: in Israel. What's the update on planned evacuations of these
Speaker 2: citizens and their families in both of those countries.
Speaker 1: So Penny one confirmed yesterday morning twenty nine hundred Australians
Speaker 1: and their families have requested help to leave Iran. In Israel,
Speaker 1: thirteen hundred Australians have applied to leave. The government is
Speaker 1: working on various ways of getting people out of the region.
Speaker 2: So ultimately where we're at is still a number of
Speaker 2: unknowns and a lot of this story to still play
Speaker 2: out over the week ahead. Lucy, I don't think this
Speaker 2: is the last time we're going to be chatting about
Speaker 2: this story on the podcast this week, let alone into
Speaker 2: the future. Thank you for breaking down what happened over
Speaker 2: the last couple of days, and we look forward to
Speaker 2: chatting again as this story does progress. And thank you
Speaker 2: for joining us on the Daily Os. We'd love to know,
Speaker 2: as Lucy mentioned in the podcast, what questions you've got
Speaker 2: about this topic so we can be as helpful as
Speaker 2: possible amid the uncertainty. We'll be back again with some
Speaker 2: headlines in the afternoon. Until then, have a beautiful day.
Speaker 2: My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
Speaker 2: Bungelung Kalkuttin woman from Gadigol Country. The Daily os acknowledges
Speaker 2: that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the
Speaker 2: Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torres
Speaker 2: Strait Island and nations. We pay our respects to the
Speaker 2: first peoples of these countries, both past and present.